Re: oracle server for learning purposes?

On Jul 23, 2:44 pm, HansF <fuzzy.greybe..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 9:46 pm, HansF <fuzzy.greybe..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 9:14 pm, hjr.pyth..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 12:15 pm, HansF <fuzzy.greybe..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> > > > However, I note that the license has a complete section on the
> > > > rights. That has 3 major parts:
>
> > > > 1) What you are permitted to do
> > > > 2) Who owns the Oracle softwarly
> > > > 3) Confirmation of what you are permitted to do by giving specific
> > > > exclusions, presumably as examples.
> > > > Part 1 states "We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited
> > > > license to use the programs only for the purpose of developing a
> > > > single prototype of your application, and not for any other purpose."
> > > > That "not for any other purpose" is pretty explicit.
>
> > > Well, as I said earlier and elsewhere, it's only pretty explicit if
> > > you leave off the next sentence, where they clarify that it is the
> > > commercial or production use of any application so prototyped that is
> > > the issue. The inclusion of that second sentence actually seems to be
> > > contradictory to the first, in fact, because it implicitly allows
> > > other uses that the first sentence seeks to deny. That's bad drafting
> > > and leaves the matter of 'explicit prohibition' up in the air.
>
> > I disagree. The exact wording is
>
> > "If you use the application you develop under this license for any
> > internal data processing or for any commercial or production purposes,
> > or you want to use the programs for any purpose other than as
> > permitted under this agreement, you must contact us, or an Oracle
> > reseller, to obtain the appropriate license. ..."
>
> On re-read, it's even clearer. That second sentence talks about two
> things:
>
> 1) The app that you prototyped - if it is to be used in any internal/
> commercial/production way, you need to contact Oracle;
> 2) The database software provided by Oracle - if it is to be used for
> anything other than the permitted purpose (prototyping), you need to
> contact Oracle
>
> The only thing that we can hope for is that which both you (Howard and
> Daniel) and I have already agreed on in various posts ... learning how
> to use the program (for example, by entering SQL commands) is a
> specific and acceptable form of prototyping. And the resulting
> application will never be deployed internally, commercially or in any
> form of production.
>
> --
> Hans Forbrich (mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com)
> *** Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong!
> *** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond.

If you exclude all use except A, there is no need to point out that B and C are not allowed. Once you state that B and C are not allowed, on the other hand, you are stating that A is not all-encompassing.

Put another way: you only clarify when clarification is needed. That the Corporation sought to clarify a 'thou shalt only use this product to do A' statement tells us (me, at least) that their first sentence is not proscriptive of all uses except A.

Besides which, there's more to it than the reading of two sentences. You have to read the entire license, not two sentences. And the list of 'you may nots' included in part 3 of the license is further evidence that the license **as a whole** is not proscriptive of nonprototyping  use, whatever one or two sentences may purport. And there remains the fact that I think we're agreed on: no definition of 'prototyping' is offered, so pretty much anything bar commercial use of the software could be construed as being allowed.

I have two barristers who'll back that three-part interpretation (because they gave it to me first!).

But really, that's neither here nor there, since the only place such arguments carry real meaning is a courtroom. What I *don't* want left on the record is statements of 'but of course, you aren't licensed to learn with EE'. Or 'Clearly, using the software is not legal'. There's no 'of course' about it and 'clearly' there's room for considerable legal argument, at least.

The only thing that is clear to me, therefore, is that no-one is breaching any term of the license in downloading the software and using it for non-commercial, solo home learning purposes... or that, if they are in breach of the license, it's not clear-cut and obvious that they are. In those circumstances, absent the Corporation proving the point with a test case, there's really nothing to get worried about. Suggestions to the contrary remind me a lot of Microsoft's claim that Linux infringes numerous unspecified patents: worrying, frightening, causing concern... but fundamentally, mere FUD until the company proves otherwise. Received on Mon Jul 23 2007 - 00:53:30 CDT